Menu

Migrants sit in Italian navy ship Vega during a rescue operation off the coast of Sicily, in this handout picture courtesy of the Italian Marina Militare (Marine Military) released on May 4, 2015. REUTERS/Marina Militare

Letting in millions more migrants makes good economic sense.

LONDON — THOUSANDS of people drown trying to reach Europe — an estimated 1,250 did so in April alone. By denying desperate people the opportunity to cross borders legally, European governments are driving them to risk death.

What if Europe — or the United States — took a different approach: allow people to come and go freely?

Defenders of the “Fortress Europe” policy are adamant: If Europe abandoned immigration controls, it would be swamped with foreigners and our economies and societies would collapse. It’s a deep-rooted fear, as if immigrants were the barbarians at the gates…

…The biggest benefit of all, of course, is that the Mediterranean Sea would no longer be a watery grave. And people much poorer than ourselves could enjoy a bigger leap in living standards than any foreign aid would achieve. Europe should have the courage to open up.

It’s scarcely worth quoting more. He talks about Eastern European immigrants and Russian Jews in Israel — completely different scenarios than Muslims and sub-Saharan Africans.

Then he attempts to say that most of them don’t stay, using the example of the US. Really? Enough stay to become a serious problem and that’s more than enough.

There’s the rehashing of arguments about Europe’s birth rate — great, let’s replace them with Africans.

I won’t even mention the throwaway about the wonders of “diversity.”

But the biggest surprise is the comments from their liberal readership. This one has over 200 recommends. All the top-rated comments are critical:

No it does not! I’m sorry but Europe can not absorb so many immigrants who need special services, benefits, and other expensive accommodations. And how, my friend, does Europe separate the immigrants from those who are moving to bring jihad to European shores.

There seems to be a belief that Western countries have no right to maintain their borders or their cultural integrity or their economies for their own citizens. Of course, that does not mean that immigrants should never be welcomed but as with everything in life there must be a rational and controlled system.

Such a system would limit the benefits available to immigrants as well as limiting the flow. It would also require that immigrants speak the language of the host country. The idea that European countries should be forced change in order to accommodate immigrants rather than the other way around is simply wrong.

No country is obligated to destroy itself to help others.

Additionally, encouraging people to leave their countries rather than stay and insist on change that will make their countries livable doesn’t solve the problems that cased the immigration in the first place.

People are wising up. Mass immigration will impoverish them. No western nation needs an influx of unskilled people refugee or immigrant.

The only economic benefit flows directly to the corporate sector which suppresses wages. It’s a dive to the bottom.

David Murrell

In economics, going back into the 19th century, there has been an “optimal population” literature, whereby there is an “optimal population” that maximizes public welfare. Even to this day, economists are busy devising complicated models describing what is optimal. All this is to say that rational countries have borders and border guards, and carefully screen applicants. The New York Times is extremist and insane, to claim otherwise. If Europe would allow in a million mostly illegals — Mostly Muslim and totally unskilled — everyone is worse off. Only a lunatic would argue otherwise.

Clinton

As I understand the author of this New York Times piece, he’s
saying that Europe should simply throw open their borders to all
comers, regardless of national security or the burden it would place
on taxpayers. I have to wonder, does the author practice what he’s
preaching? Does he leave his front door open so any passers-by,
robbers, or crazy homeless persons can enter his home at will and help
themselves? Because if he doesn’t do that, then Mr. Phillipe Legrain of
the New York Times is just a jackass and a hypocrite for
blaming Europe for doing the same.

If everyone who immigrated had skills, a willingness to work, and did not bring a 7th century social system with them, they might be assimilable. The important word here is “might”.

If they are uneducated, have no useable skills, unwilling to work and are dedicated to a 7th century killing cult, there is a high probability of assimilation failure.

So at best Europe “might” be OK with a large number of willing to work, skilled immigrants without 7th century social baggage. But bringing in large numbers of uneducated, unwilling to work, 7th century social misfits is suicidal.

That sums it up – the arguments put forward by the pro-immigration propagandists are fallacious nonsense, since they do not take into account all the facts of the case. Most of the immigrants are ticking time bombs for the host countries.

Oil and beef

Africans have f**ked up their own countries for decades. Now Europe should let them in? They have no education, no English language, no job skills, a diametrically opposed religion, health problems, etc.

mobuyus

Don’t you worry Oil and beef, right now as I type smoked salmon socialists and limousine liberals of the EU are striking committees to study what should be done ,while swanning and preening about five star bena lux hotels.

no4

You know it!

Clink9

They keep mixing the crap into the ice cream.

no4

http://www.philippelegrain.com/ an economic adviser to the president of the European Commission from 2011 to 2014, is the author of “European Spring: Why Our Economies and Politics Are in a Mess — and How to Put Them Right.”
No wonder the EU is screwed with a muppet like this advising the boss. I might have to print a copy of his article so I can wipe my arse with it

“No country is obligated to destroy itself to help others.” This is plain common-sense, but all the knee-jerk PC crowd are saying that there is an absolute moral imperative to welcome the ‘migrants’ (invaders) with open arms, and indeed help them come over, and indeed feed and house them forever after, no matter what the consequences. Heroic self-sacrifice (and sacrifice of all their fellow citizens) seems to be their ambition – it is more a spiritual ideal than political realism that moves them. In short, they’ve collectively gone nuts.

Frau Katze

These are NYT subscribers too…a pretty liberal bunch.

Hard Little Machine

Meanwhile if a single Jew anywhere on earth emigrates to Israel, the NY Times flips the fuck out screaming ‘occupation! colonialism! cultural pollution!!!!’